[oldalum]

seems like an annual vaccine schedule might do the trick?

[oldalum]

seems like an annual vaccine schedule might do the trick?

[JustAnotherFan]

At a certain point, it may become prudent to "read the room." Perhaps you'd find more satisfaction sharing your views among those 60% likeminded folks than here among those of us who think otherwise.

Fine. Enjoy your echo chamber.

Great.  That is called tyranny of the majority 2006alum.  If someone doesn't agree with "the majority" they should not post here?  You have asked a member to leave this board because they don't agree with you.  BTW, how do you arrive at your 60% figure? Counting the loudest voices?  You are a mod on this board.  Shameful.  This is a time when we should all be pulling together, helping, and comforting each other.  

I would say to all Cardboard members that there are plenty of forums for you to lay waste to the Trump administration, or the Chinese, or Russia, or republicans, or democrats, etc.  But the Cardboard should not be the forum for such rhetoric.  The admin and mods have chosen to suspend enforcement against political posts on the Covid-19 forum because of the difficulty to discern politics with this crisis and because people are understandable anxious about the pandemic.  But when a mod becomes one of the loudest voices in political posts and seeks to drive from the Cardboard a member who clearly comes from the opposite side of the political fence, this has gone too far.  There is valuable potentially lifesaving information being shared on this board, but the aggressive politically provocative posts being made by a handful of members will likely get this forum shut down.

You mean like the person that 2006alum was responding to? We gotta stop acting like criticism of Trump's action is assumed to be a liberal baselessly attacking Trump for being a conservative. And we gotta stop acting like someone who calls out blatant partisan apologism is the one who is making aggressive politically provocative posts. 

If this is a time when we should all be pulling together, helping, and comforting each other, then shouldn't the burden be on those who are trying to minimize the harm that has been done, or who are throwing out red herrings to distract from the issues at hand?

[JustAnotherFan]

At a certain point, it may become prudent to "read the room." Perhaps you'd find more satisfaction sharing your views among those 60% likeminded folks than here among those of us who think otherwise.

Fine. Enjoy your echo chamber.

Great.  That is called tyranny of the majority 2006alum.  If someone doesn't agree with "the majority" they should not post here?  You have asked a member to leave this board because they don't agree with you.  BTW, how do you arrive at your 60% figure? Counting the loudest voices?  You are a mod on this board.  Shameful.  This is a time when we should all be pulling together, helping, and comforting each other.  

I would say to all Cardboard members that there are plenty of forums for you to lay waste to the Trump administration, or the Chinese, or Russia, or republicans, or democrats, etc.  But the Cardboard should not be the forum for such rhetoric.  The admin and mods have chosen to suspend enforcement against political posts on the Covid-19 forum because of the difficulty to discern politics with this crisis and because people are understandable anxious about the pandemic.  But when a mod becomes one of the loudest voices in political posts and seeks to drive from the Cardboard a member who clearly comes from the opposite side of the political fence, this has gone too far.  There is valuable potentially lifesaving information being shared on this board, but the aggressive politically provocative posts being made by a handful of members will likely get this forum shut down.

You mean like the person that 2006alum was responding to? We gotta stop acting like criticism of Trump's action is assumed to be a liberal baselessly attacking Trump for being a conservative. And we gotta stop acting like someone who calls out blatant partisan apologism is the one who is making aggressive politically provocative posts. 

If this is a time when we should all be pulling together, helping, and comforting each other, then shouldn't the burden be on those who are trying to minimize the harm that has been done, or who are throwing out red herrings to distract from the issues at hand?

[2006alum]

Marty, please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't ask anyone to leave the board. My suggestion was that if someone thinks most people here are "useless" because all they want to do is "blame Trump for everything," then perhaps they could consider whether it's worth it to keep firing back, over and over, without any evidence that their rebuttals are successful in persuading others to their position. My impression is that those rebuttals have tended to inflame rather than inform, and at a certain point it has come to feel like one or two posters are mostly interesting in dragging and trolling rather than informing and engaging in a thoughtful debate. And I don't think that's just a left-right thing: there have been many informed takes by those who generally have more right-of-center views as well as left-of-center views. But none of those people has accused everyone else on this board of being "useless" Trump haters.

And let me make one thing clear: I have not acted in a moderator capacity regulating speech even once in this COVID-19 space. Unlike you, I haven't chided posters, docked warnings, or told posters they could be put on time out. So please do not accuse me infringing members' speech in a moderator capacity, because that is not what I'm doing. Since we've decided to let this go unmoderated apart from outright personal attacks, etc., I've stood down entirely as a moderator. I speak only as a poster, same as anyone, and I don't consider myself to have one ounce more authority than anyone else.

[2006alum]

Marty, please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't ask anyone to leave the board. My suggestion was that if someone thinks most people here are "useless" because all they want to do is "blame Trump for everything," then perhaps they could consider whether it's worth it to keep firing back, over and over, without any evidence that their rebuttals are successful in persuading others to their position. My impression is that those rebuttals have tended to inflame rather than inform, and at a certain point it has come to feel like one or two posters are mostly interesting in dragging and trolling rather than informing and engaging in a thoughtful debate. And I don't think that's just a left-right thing: there have been many informed takes by those who generally have more right-of-center views as well as left-of-center views. But none of those people has accused everyone else on this board of being "useless" Trump haters.

And let me make one thing clear: I have not acted in a moderator capacity regulating speech even once in this COVID-19 space. Unlike you, I haven't chided posters, docked warnings, or told posters they could be put on time out. So please do not accuse me infringing members' speech in a moderator capacity, because that is not what I'm doing. Since we've decided to let this go unmoderated apart from outright personal attacks, etc., I've stood down entirely as a moderator. I speak only as a poster, same as anyone, and I don't consider myself to have one ounce more authority than anyone else.

[Goose]

And it has to be national: even if the Santa Clara Health Commissioner were the world's finest, he or she can't isolate cases coming from outside Santa Clara all on her own. 

Yes she can (not personally, but with an adequate, trained staff). It is inherently a mostly "local" action anyway. One of the real encouraging aspects of this whole thing is how well the Bay Area counties have worked together to start a community response. This type of tracing activity needs to be "national" only in the sense that people who are determined as likely to be ill have to be traced even if they cross state lines. Theoretically, the USPHS is responsible for making sure this happens. The "within California cases" can be handled within California. It doesn't require (or really benefit from) getting the USPHS directly involved tracing local cases. We do need a national data base of un-located contacts/potentially exposed persons, but not much more. Without this data base, it will be more difficult but not impossible to keep the disease under control. The elimination of outbreak "pockets" will be a continuing requirement in any case.

The problem may very well be (is, IMHO) that the Santa Clara County Health Department doesn't have the trained staff to do so. If this were a "small" outbreak, the USPHS might have enough trained people they could send to help us do it/do it for us, although even then I think it is a bit "iffy". Given the size of the outbreak, that isn't feasible. We need to slap together enough people to do this, and quickly. The cavalry isn't going to ride in and save us. In this case, it doesn't really exist.

[Goose]

And it has to be national: even if the Santa Clara Health Commissioner were the world's finest, he or she can't isolate cases coming from outside Santa Clara all on her own. 

Yes she can (not personally, but with an adequate, trained staff). It is inherently a mostly "local" action anyway. One of the real encouraging aspects of this whole thing is how well the Bay Area counties have worked together to start a community response. This type of tracing activity needs to be "national" only in the sense that people who are determined as likely to be ill have to be traced even if they cross state lines. Theoretically, the USPHS is responsible for making sure this happens. The "within California cases" can be handled within California. It doesn't require (or really benefit from) getting the USPHS directly involved tracing local cases. We do need a national data base of un-located contacts/potentially exposed persons, but not much more. Without this data base, it will be more difficult but not impossible to keep the disease under control. The elimination of outbreak "pockets" will be a continuing requirement in any case.

The problem may very well be (is, IMHO) that the Santa Clara County Health Department doesn't have the trained staff to do so. If this were a "small" outbreak, the USPHS might have enough trained people they could send to help us do it/do it for us, although even then I think it is a bit "iffy". Given the size of the outbreak, that isn't feasible. We need to slap together enough people to do this, and quickly. The cavalry isn't going to ride in and save us. In this case, it doesn't really exist.

[BostonCard]

The United States was probably one of the top 2-3 most prepared countries to deal with a pandemic. There was a 60+ page pandemic response manual prepared for the White House. When the transition from 44 to 45 happened, someone who was since fired or otherwise removed from a position of influence to use it, was really happy to have and appreciated the guidance because he planned to have the new administration use it if ever faced with the need, so he thought.

IOW, the White House had an instruction manual to follow - probably few countries had - but never took it out of the proverbial drawer and totally pissed away the first mover advantage the U.S. had. Who the hell knows why the manual was ignored, but anyone who thinks the White House hasn't failed spectacularly really needs to read this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/25...cil-149285 

No, the virus couldn't have been completely stopped, but had recommendations that were available and produced by people who knew WTF they were doing actually been followed, which includes responding quickly and in a coordinated fashion, we wouldn't be facing the catastraf*ck on the scale we are now.  

Highlighting failures and blaming people are two sides of the same coin. This post isn't an effort to blame anyone as much as it is to highlight the value of having the best people in charge, and the importance of holding those who screw up accountable. Because without accountability, there will be nothing but more disaster ahead.

I'll take a somewhat contrarian response.  While ultimately, the president signed up for this and the buck has to stop with him, I am not entirely convinced that under a different election result in 2016 that things would be that much better.  To quote Mike Tyson, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.  And this virus has come out punching hard.  We've had decades where pandemic preparedness has been an afterthought, a distant hypothetical exercise akin to scenarios planning for something like a Chinese invasion of Taiwan war game.  Is it a surprise that things haven't entirely gone according to plan?  It worth noting that that the South Korea is the exception that proves the rule, and they (and other East Asian countries) had SARS as a warning sign.  That the pandemic has been devastating (or is becoming devastating) to most Western European countries, many with very different health systems and strategies than the US suggests that this is hardly a problem unique to the US.

Now, I don't have much confidence in our current leadership.  There are obviously a lot of things Donald Trump says and does that I disagree with, and that I think make things worse.  But, on the whole, this crisis is bigger than the administration, and I think has become a challenge for administrations of all stripes.  While it looks like California and Washington are doing a bit better than average, New York is obviously a nightmare and Louisiana (also with a Democratic governor) looks to be the next hotspot.  I've praised (Republican) Mike DeWine for his decisive action but Ron DeSantis (Florida) has deservedly come under criticism.

But the bottom line is that while I think we could have been much better prepared, I doubt this could have been prevented entirely.  There is just too much global travel and coronavirus spreads much to easily undetected to have truly allowed us to prevent the pandemic entirely.

BC

[BostonCard]

The United States was probably one of the top 2-3 most prepared countries to deal with a pandemic. There was a 60+ page pandemic response manual prepared for the White House. When the transition from 44 to 45 happened, someone who was since fired or otherwise removed from a position of influence to use it, was really happy to have and appreciated the guidance because he planned to have the new administration use it if ever faced with the need, so he thought.

IOW, the White House had an instruction manual to follow - probably few countries had - but never took it out of the proverbial drawer and totally pissed away the first mover advantage the U.S. had. Who the hell knows why the manual was ignored, but anyone who thinks the White House hasn't failed spectacularly really needs to read this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/25...cil-149285 

No, the virus couldn't have been completely stopped, but had recommendations that were available and produced by people who knew WTF they were doing actually been followed, which includes responding quickly and in a coordinated fashion, we wouldn't be facing the catastraf*ck on the scale we are now.  

Highlighting failures and blaming people are two sides of the same coin. This post isn't an effort to blame anyone as much as it is to highlight the value of having the best people in charge, and the importance of holding those who screw up accountable. Because without accountability, there will be nothing but more disaster ahead.

I'll take a somewhat contrarian response.  While ultimately, the president signed up for this and the buck has to stop with him, I am not entirely convinced that under a different election result in 2016 that things would be that much better.  To quote Mike Tyson, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.  And this virus has come out punching hard.  We've had decades where pandemic preparedness has been an afterthought, a distant hypothetical exercise akin to scenarios planning for something like a Chinese invasion of Taiwan war game.  Is it a surprise that things haven't entirely gone according to plan?  It worth noting that that the South Korea is the exception that proves the rule, and they (and other East Asian countries) had SARS as a warning sign.  That the pandemic has been devastating (or is becoming devastating) to most Western European countries, many with very different health systems and strategies than the US suggests that this is hardly a problem unique to the US.

Now, I don't have much confidence in our current leadership.  There are obviously a lot of things Donald Trump says and does that I disagree with, and that I think make things worse.  But, on the whole, this crisis is bigger than the administration, and I think has become a challenge for administrations of all stripes.  While it looks like California and Washington are doing a bit better than average, New York is obviously a nightmare and Louisiana (also with a Democratic governor) looks to be the next hotspot.  I've praised (Republican) Mike DeWine for his decisive action but Ron DeSantis (Florida) has deservedly come under criticism.

But the bottom line is that while I think we could have been much better prepared, I doubt this could have been prevented entirely.  There is just too much global travel and coronavirus spreads much to easily undetected to have truly allowed us to prevent the pandemic entirely.

BC

[magnus]

While it looks like California and Washington are doing a bit better than average, New York is obviously a nightmare and Louisiana (also with a Democratic governor) looks to be the next hotspot. 

Please don't jinx CA and WA. =/  I think WA was artificially thrust into the lead due to the outbreak landing spot (nursing home).  If you minimize that contribution and adjust the start date, WA is moving up just like any other state.  CA...I worry what next week will look like.

But the bottom line is that while I think we could have been much better prepared, I doubt this could have been prevented entirely.  There is just too much global travel and coronavirus spreads much to easily undetected to have truly allowed us to prevent the pandemic entirely.

Agreed...in order to have really shut this down, given the average American's lack of social distance and facemasking, we'd have to have acted from the start as if this virus were contagious pre-symptoms.  Which would have required a much higher level of action to counter...a level of action that I can't imagine any American government would be able to justify undergoing without proof.

[magnus]

While it looks like California and Washington are doing a bit better than average, New York is obviously a nightmare and Louisiana (also with a Democratic governor) looks to be the next hotspot. 

Please don't jinx CA and WA. =/  I think WA was artificially thrust into the lead due to the outbreak landing spot (nursing home).  If you minimize that contribution and adjust the start date, WA is moving up just like any other state.  CA...I worry what next week will look like.

But the bottom line is that while I think we could have been much better prepared, I doubt this could have been prevented entirely.  There is just too much global travel and coronavirus spreads much to easily undetected to have truly allowed us to prevent the pandemic entirely.

Agreed...in order to have really shut this down, given the average American's lack of social distance and facemasking, we'd have to have acted from the start as if this virus were contagious pre-symptoms.  Which would have required a much higher level of action to counter...a level of action that I can't imagine any American government would be able to justify undergoing without proof.

[oldalum]

.in order to have really shut this down, given the average American's lack of social distance and facemasking, we'd have to have acted from the start as if this virus were contagious pre-symptoms.  Which would have required a much higher level of action to counter...a level of action that I can't imagine any American government would be able to justify undergoing without proof.

Yes. In the interview linked elsewhere on this board, SSC's Dr. Cody said the key moment was when they had the first patient who had acquired the virus from "community spread" -- i.e., they could not identify how or where she got it from. It probably would have been impossible at that time for her to have imposed the shelter-at-home order that would have been needed to tamp down the spread early in its exponential growth. But it raises the question in my mind, was it necessary for us to see community spread without symptoms here when it was happening outside the U.S.?

Where I think our federal government fell short is in making preparations for the incoming epidemic when they knew in January it was likely coming. That would have been the time to start ramping up production of PPE and ventilators, and import tests initially while multi-tracking ours. (by putting all our eggs in the CDC's basket re testing, the feds gambled and lost). Over time, we will learn what our top government officials were told when, and whether their responses were prudent (I hope in time for the next election--that is the appropriate point where accountability can be enforced). But it is troubling that the intelligence agencies apparently were "warning" the POTUS in January about this--we'll need to learn more about that and about the President's response (I know he downplayed it publicly for quite a while, but that would not be so bad if he was simultaneously getting the federal response appropriately ramped up behind the scenes--which doesn't seem to have happened).

Bottom line: spread of the infection in the U.S. could not have been prevented, but with stronger federal action, the shortage of equipment and tests could have been lessened, and social distancing could have been imposed earlier and consistently.

[oldalum]

.in order to have really shut this down, given the average American's lack of social distance and facemasking, we'd have to have acted from the start as if this virus were contagious pre-symptoms.  Which would have required a much higher level of action to counter...a level of action that I can't imagine any American government would be able to justify undergoing without proof.

Yes. In the interview linked elsewhere on this board, SSC's Dr. Cody said the key moment was when they had the first patient who had acquired the virus from "community spread" -- i.e., they could not identify how or where she got it from. It probably would have been impossible at that time for her to have imposed the shelter-at-home order that would have been needed to tamp down the spread early in its exponential growth. But it raises the question in my mind, was it necessary for us to see community spread without symptoms here when it was happening outside the U.S.?

Where I think our federal government fell short is in making preparations for the incoming epidemic when they knew in January it was likely coming. That would have been the time to start ramping up production of PPE and ventilators, and import tests initially while multi-tracking ours. (by putting all our eggs in the CDC's basket re testing, the feds gambled and lost). Over time, we will learn what our top government officials were told when, and whether their responses were prudent (I hope in time for the next election--that is the appropriate point where accountability can be enforced). But it is troubling that the intelligence agencies apparently were "warning" the POTUS in January about this--we'll need to learn more about that and about the President's response (I know he downplayed it publicly for quite a while, but that would not be so bad if he was simultaneously getting the federal response appropriately ramped up behind the scenes--which doesn't seem to have happened).

Bottom line: spread of the infection in the U.S. could not have been prevented, but with stronger federal action, the shortage of equipment and tests could have been lessened, and social distancing could have been imposed earlier and consistently.

[2006alum]

And it has to be national: even if the Santa Clara Health Commissioner were the world's finest, he or she can't isolate cases coming from outside Santa Clara all on her own. 

Yes she can (not personally, but with an adequate, trained staff). It is inherently a mostly "local" action anyway. One of the real encouraging aspects of this whole thing is how well the Bay Area counties have worked together to start a community response. This type of tracing activity needs to be "national" only in the sense that people who are determined as likely to be ill have to be traced even if they cross state lines. Theoretically, the USPHS is responsible for making sure this happens. The "within California cases" can be handled within California. It doesn't require (or really benefit from) getting the USPHS directly involved tracing local cases. We do need a national data base of un-located contacts/potentially exposed persons, but not much more. Without this data base, it will be more difficult but not impossible to keep the disease under control. The elimination of outbreak "pockets" will be a continuing requirement in any case.

The problem may very well be (is, IMHO) that the Santa Clara County Health Department doesn't have the trained staff to do so. If this were a "small" outbreak, the USPHS might have enough trained people they could send to help us do it/do it for us, although even then I think it is a bit "iffy". Given the size of the outbreak, that isn't feasible. We need to slap together enough people to do this, and quickly. The cavalry isn't going to ride in and save us. In this case, it doesn't really exist.

I guess my point was simply that unless every county health commissioner is doing this, if others aren't, and those contagious patients go across county and state lines, it starts all over again. In this sense, the spillovers are unavoidable and the only way to fix it is a consistent, nationwide response. Taiwan wouldn't have simply 1/2 the success it's having if 1/2 the island declined to test, contact trace, and isolate, because it only takes a few rotten/contagious apples to re-spoil the whole barrel.

[2006alum]

And it has to be national: even if the Santa Clara Health Commissioner were the world's finest, he or she can't isolate cases coming from outside Santa Clara all on her own. 

Yes she can (not personally, but with an adequate, trained staff). It is inherently a mostly "local" action anyway. One of the real encouraging aspects of this whole thing is how well the Bay Area counties have worked together to start a community response. This type of tracing activity needs to be "national" only in the sense that people who are determined as likely to be ill have to be traced even if they cross state lines. Theoretically, the USPHS is responsible for making sure this happens. The "within California cases" can be handled within California. It doesn't require (or really benefit from) getting the USPHS directly involved tracing local cases. We do need a national data base of un-located contacts/potentially exposed persons, but not much more. Without this data base, it will be more difficult but not impossible to keep the disease under control. The elimination of outbreak "pockets" will be a continuing requirement in any case.

The problem may very well be (is, IMHO) that the Santa Clara County Health Department doesn't have the trained staff to do so. If this were a "small" outbreak, the USPHS might have enough trained people they could send to help us do it/do it for us, although even then I think it is a bit "iffy". Given the size of the outbreak, that isn't feasible. We need to slap together enough people to do this, and quickly. The cavalry isn't going to ride in and save us. In this case, it doesn't really exist.

I guess my point was simply that unless every county health commissioner is doing this, if others aren't, and those contagious patients go across county and state lines, it starts all over again. In this sense, the spillovers are unavoidable and the only way to fix it is a consistent, nationwide response. Taiwan wouldn't have simply 1/2 the success it's having if 1/2 the island declined to test, contact trace, and isolate, because it only takes a few rotten/contagious apples to re-spoil the whole barrel.

[OutsiderFan]

This isn't some ideological enterprise.

Someone had a manual, outlining how the federal government should react to the exact situation presented in January, 2020.

That manual was wholesale ignored.

This is like someone getting in a car to drive while intoxicated. It doesn't even matter if they hurt anyone. The mere fact they took such a stupid risk and put others in jeopardy, will result in sanction when caught. Yet some people literally are incapable of saying the guy shouldn't have driven while intoxicated. They want to blame the guy who sold the driver the alcohol. They want to blame the police officer for pulling the guy over, claiming if they didn't everything would be fine. They might even blame the car for whatever cockamamie reason.

This. Is. Madness. Again, if we can't hold people accountable for their actions when they exercise terrible judgment that put others at risk, why are we even here? We all have a responsibility to each other to hold people accountable when they fail or the fabric of society cannot hold.

To put this another way, we need to know "who ordered the code red?"

[OutsiderFan]

This isn't some ideological enterprise.

Someone had a manual, outlining how the federal government should react to the exact situation presented in January, 2020.

That manual was wholesale ignored.

This is like someone getting in a car to drive while intoxicated. It doesn't even matter if they hurt anyone. The mere fact they took such a stupid risk and put others in jeopardy, will result in sanction when caught. Yet some people literally are incapable of saying the guy shouldn't have driven while intoxicated. They want to blame the guy who sold the driver the alcohol. They want to blame the police officer for pulling the guy over, claiming if they didn't everything would be fine. They might even blame the car for whatever cockamamie reason.

This. Is. Madness. Again, if we can't hold people accountable for their actions when they exercise terrible judgment that put others at risk, why are we even here? We all have a responsibility to each other to hold people accountable when they fail or the fabric of society cannot hold.

To put this another way, we need to know "who ordered the code red?"

[JustAnotherFan]

This. Is. Madness. Again, if we can't hold people accountable for their actions when they exercise terrible judgment that put others at risk, why are we even here? We all have a responsibility to each other to hold people accountable when they fail or the fabric of society cannot hold.

Agreed. And at the expense of sounding like a broken record, calling someone out on their incompetence that will result in tens of thousands, if not millions, of death, the people who went down that path at everyone else's expense is not even close to being held accountable. 

When someone drinks and drives they actually face jail time, and potential prison time. When a corporation commits crimes it risks being made to pay large financial penalties and sometimes even the executives go to prison. 

The Trump administration only has to fear getting criticized. Maybe losing an election. That's not accountability relative to the severity of the (in)action.

[JustAnotherFan]

This. Is. Madness. Again, if we can't hold people accountable for their actions when they exercise terrible judgment that put others at risk, why are we even here? We all have a responsibility to each other to hold people accountable when they fail or the fabric of society cannot hold.

Agreed. And at the expense of sounding like a broken record, calling someone out on their incompetence that will result in tens of thousands, if not millions, of death, the people who went down that path at everyone else's expense is not even close to being held accountable. 

When someone drinks and drives they actually face jail time, and potential prison time. When a corporation commits crimes it risks being made to pay large financial penalties and sometimes even the executives go to prison. 

The Trump administration only has to fear getting criticized. Maybe losing an election. That's not accountability relative to the severity of the (in)action.

[BostonCard]

To me this strikes me more like a drunk driver who has the misfortune of driving straight into an oncoming bigrig.  You might have wondered if a sober person would have been able to swerve at the last minute to aver disaster, and of course you can criticize the drunk driver for stepping on the gas instead of the break and making this worse, but it's also possible that even the most skilled driver wouldn't have made it out unscathed.

BC

[BostonCard]

To me this strikes me more like a drunk driver who has the misfortune of driving straight into an oncoming bigrig.  You might have wondered if a sober person would have been able to swerve at the last minute to aver disaster, and of course you can criticize the drunk driver for stepping on the gas instead of the break and making this worse, but it's also possible that even the most skilled driver wouldn't have made it out unscathed.

BC

[M T]

Admins, I would vote to have this thread deleted as much of it has devolved into my side vs your side arguments.

[M T]

Admins, I would vote to have this thread deleted as much of it has devolved into my side vs your side arguments.

[OutsiderFan]

Admins, I would vote to have this thread deleted as much of it has devolved into my side vs your side arguments.

The Politico article is a very important story for everyone to read just to have an accurate understanding of the situation.

[OutsiderFan]

Admins, I would vote to have this thread deleted as much of it has devolved into my side vs your side arguments.

The Politico article is a very important story for everyone to read just to have an accurate understanding of the situation.

[Mick]

Admins, I would vote to have this thread deleted as much of it has devolved into my side vs your side arguments.

+1.  You can get this garbage talk anywhere.  It shouldn't be here.

[Mick]

Admins, I would vote to have this thread deleted as much of it has devolved into my side vs your side arguments.

+1.  You can get this garbage talk anywhere.  It shouldn't be here.

[Goose]

I guess my point was simply that unless every county health commissioner is doing this, if others aren't, and those contagious patients go across county and state lines, it starts all over again. In this sense, the spillovers are unavoidable and the only way to fix it is a consistent, nationwide response.

You are correct that a trace and test strategy can be overwhelmed by an influx of infected people from elsewhere. It is necessary that each county at least keep the cases down to a dull roar. If we are all at about the same point when the controls start being lifted, that should be possible. As for a consistent nationwide response, I don't think so. As Dr. Fauci has pointed out, each situation is different. The entire population of Lincoln County Nevada could be positive and move to Santa Clara County tomorrow. That would be problematic but not overwhelming. Lincoln County doesn't need and can't do what Santa Clara and San Mateo can and must do.
Late Addition: Dr Birx talked about exactly this issue today at the daily briefing. What she said wasn't as detailed as I would have liked, but she did have a  lot to say about contact tracing in counties with low infection levels.

Taiwan wouldn't have simply 1/2 the success it's having if 1/2 the island declined to test, contact trace, and isolate, because it only takes a few rotten/contagious apples to re-spoil the whole barrel.

Actually, no. It takes a critical mass of contagious apples to spoil the whole barrel. China is dealing with that situation now. So is Singapore. So far, so good. However, they could end up being overwhelmed if there are too many, just as Santa Clara county could be. It isn't going to be easy to do since we are starting from such a weak initial capability. If we fail at this, we have the possibility of a big rebound, and generating the political will to go back to shelter-in-place will be difficult to impossible. Many will justly ask "It didn't work the first time. Why take the economic hit again if it won't work?".

[Goose]

I guess my point was simply that unless every county health commissioner is doing this, if others aren't, and those contagious patients go across county and state lines, it starts all over again. In this sense, the spillovers are unavoidable and the only way to fix it is a consistent, nationwide response.

You are correct that a trace and test strategy can be overwhelmed by an influx of infected people from elsewhere. It is necessary that each county at least keep the cases down to a dull roar. If we are all at about the same point when the controls start being lifted, that should be possible. As for a consistent nationwide response, I don't think so. As Dr. Fauci has pointed out, each situation is different. The entire population of Lincoln County Nevada could be positive and move to Santa Clara County tomorrow. That would be problematic but not overwhelming. Lincoln County doesn't need and can't do what Santa Clara and San Mateo can and must do.
Late Addition: Dr Birx talked about exactly this issue today at the daily briefing. What she said wasn't as detailed as I would have liked, but she did have a  lot to say about contact tracing in counties with low infection levels.

Taiwan wouldn't have simply 1/2 the success it's having if 1/2 the island declined to test, contact trace, and isolate, because it only takes a few rotten/contagious apples to re-spoil the whole barrel.

Actually, no. It takes a critical mass of contagious apples to spoil the whole barrel. China is dealing with that situation now. So is Singapore. So far, so good. However, they could end up being overwhelmed if there are too many, just as Santa Clara county could be. It isn't going to be easy to do since we are starting from such a weak initial capability. If we fail at this, we have the possibility of a big rebound, and generating the political will to go back to shelter-in-place will be difficult to impossible. Many will justly ask "It didn't work the first time. Why take the economic hit again if it won't work?".

[CornFed]

So please, stop with the constant automatic criticisms of Trump and the administration. People are dying by the thousands and we as a country need to resolve it. By the way, 60% of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the crisis so far. If the Cardboard were a measure, it be 99% think he should be tried for mass murder.

Do you believe Stanford grads tend to be more thoughtful, more intelligent, more critical, and more ethical than the general public?

Apparently you don't.  At least if they don't think like you.

[CornFed]

So please, stop with the constant automatic criticisms of Trump and the administration. People are dying by the thousands and we as a country need to resolve it. By the way, 60% of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the crisis so far. If the Cardboard were a measure, it be 99% think he should be tried for mass murder.

Do you believe Stanford grads tend to be more thoughtful, more intelligent, more critical, and more ethical than the general public?

Apparently you don't.  At least if they don't think like you.

[2006alum]

Immunity to other coronaviruses (the ones that cause a common cold) lasts for about a year, unfortunately.  It isn't because the virus mutates, but rather because immunity to different viruses wanes at different rates (for example, immunity to chicken pox lasts a lifetime).

BC

Yikes. BC, if that's so, then does that suggest a vaccine isn't actually a panacea after all, and we will now need to live with annual COVID-19 resurgences the way we live with resurgences of the flu and common colds? Given how much more dire the case outcomes are, that's terrifying if so.

Maybe I missed the response to this in all the cross-chatter, but I'm still wondering why we think a vaccine is a panacea if it turns out our immunity could wane relatively rapidly. Stories like this one are beginning to concern me:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1243328270059405312?s=20[/tweet]

Although this is being freshly reported, I think that story is based off of a study released a few weeks ago. But it raises the same concern - if the immunity is temporary, would that mean we'd need to get re-immunized as often as annually? I'd welcome any input from experts in medicine or immunology on this, because it seems like we've all been operating under the assumption that social distancing and testing, contact tracing, and isolation are stopgaps to getting a "cure" in the form of immunization.

[2006alum]

Immunity to other coronaviruses (the ones that cause a common cold) lasts for about a year, unfortunately.  It isn't because the virus mutates, but rather because immunity to different viruses wanes at different rates (for example, immunity to chicken pox lasts a lifetime).

BC

Yikes. BC, if that's so, then does that suggest a vaccine isn't actually a panacea after all, and we will now need to live with annual COVID-19 resurgences the way we live with resurgences of the flu and common colds? Given how much more dire the case outcomes are, that's terrifying if so.

Maybe I missed the response to this in all the cross-chatter, but I'm still wondering why we think a vaccine is a panacea if it turns out our immunity could wane relatively rapidly. Stories like this one are beginning to concern me:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1243328270059405312?s=20[/tweet]

Although this is being freshly reported, I think that story is based off of a study released a few weeks ago. But it raises the same concern - if the immunity is temporary, would that mean we'd need to get re-immunized as often as annually? I'd welcome any input from experts in medicine or immunology on this, because it seems like we've all been operating under the assumption that social distancing and testing, contact tracing, and isolation are stopgaps to getting a "cure" in the form of immunization.

[JustAnotherFan]

So please, stop with the constant automatic criticisms of Trump and the administration. People are dying by the thousands and we as a country need to resolve it. By the way, 60% of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the crisis so far. If the Cardboard were a measure, it be 99% think he should be tried for mass murder.

Do you believe Stanford grads tend to be more thoughtful, more intelligent, more critical, and more ethical than the general public?

Apparently you don't.  At least if they don't think like you.

Classy. Feel free to ask me a question instead of assuming.

[JustAnotherFan]

So please, stop with the constant automatic criticisms of Trump and the administration. People are dying by the thousands and we as a country need to resolve it. By the way, 60% of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the crisis so far. If the Cardboard were a measure, it be 99% think he should be tried for mass murder.

Do you believe Stanford grads tend to be more thoughtful, more intelligent, more critical, and more ethical than the general public?

Apparently you don't.  At least if they don't think like you.

Classy. Feel free to ask me a question instead of assuming.

[JustAnotherFan]

Here's a great thread by Carl Bergstrom from UW that touches upon some of the amped up positions being taken by both sides (for lack of a better term) of this pandemic. 

https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/...1756669953

"[W]e are also fighting on a second front that we did not anticipate, fighting a battle against misinformation and disinformation in a hyper-partisan environment where our predictions and recommendations about the pandemic response are deeply politicized."

"Every twist and turn that the pandemic takes is seized upon by one side or other to claim that some fraction of us are incompetent if not outright mendacious." 

"Researchers are pilloried for updating their beliefs based on new information."

...

"I'm sure that 99% of these [attacks] are motivated by what we call tribal epistemology, the idea that truth is determined not so much by the facts as by the way that a claim aligns with the story that a preferred leader is telling."

...

"And so the fight against misinformation is not merely a scientific communication issue. It's a vital public health necessity."

[JustAnotherFan]

Here's a great thread by Carl Bergstrom from UW that touches upon some of the amped up positions being taken by both sides (for lack of a better term) of this pandemic. 

https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/...1756669953

"[W]e are also fighting on a second front that we did not anticipate, fighting a battle against misinformation and disinformation in a hyper-partisan environment where our predictions and recommendations about the pandemic response are deeply politicized."

"Every twist and turn that the pandemic takes is seized upon by one side or other to claim that some fraction of us are incompetent if not outright mendacious." 

"Researchers are pilloried for updating their beliefs based on new information."

...

"I'm sure that 99% of these [attacks] are motivated by what we call tribal epistemology, the idea that truth is determined not so much by the facts as by the way that a claim aligns with the story that a preferred leader is telling."

...

"And so the fight against misinformation is not merely a scientific communication issue. It's a vital public health necessity."

[Mick]

Immunity to other coronaviruses (the ones that cause a common cold) lasts for about a year, unfortunately.  It isn't because the virus mutates, but rather because immunity to different viruses wanes at different rates (for example, immunity to chicken pox lasts a lifetime).

BC

Yikes. BC, if that's so, then does that suggest a vaccine isn't actually a panacea after all, and we will now need to live with annual COVID-19 resurgences the way we live with resurgences of the flu and common colds? Given how much more dire the case outcomes are, that's terrifying if so.

Maybe I missed the response to this in all the cross-chatter, but I'm still wondering why we think a vaccine is a panacea if it turns out our immunity could wane relatively rapidly. Stories like this one are beginning to concern me:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1243328270059405312?s=20[/tweet]

Although this is being freshly reported, I think that story is based off of a study released a few weeks ago. But it raises the same concern - if the immunity is temporary, would that mean we'd need to get re-immunized as often as annually? I'd welcome any input from experts in medicine or immunology on this, because it seems like we've all been operating under the assumption that social distancing and testing, contact tracing, and isolation are stopgaps to getting a "cure" in the form of immunization.

I read an American virologiest (apologies, I can't recall the name) who stated that Chinese reinfection rates were almost assuredly the result of false negatives due to faulty testing.  Separately, I'd read that Chinese testing (both positive and negative) was similarly faulty.

[Mick]

Immunity to other coronaviruses (the ones that cause a common cold) lasts for about a year, unfortunately.  It isn't because the virus mutates, but rather because immunity to different viruses wanes at different rates (for example, immunity to chicken pox lasts a lifetime).

BC

Yikes. BC, if that's so, then does that suggest a vaccine isn't actually a panacea after all, and we will now need to live with annual COVID-19 resurgences the way we live with resurgences of the flu and common colds? Given how much more dire the case outcomes are, that's terrifying if so.

Maybe I missed the response to this in all the cross-chatter, but I'm still wondering why we think a vaccine is a panacea if it turns out our immunity could wane relatively rapidly. Stories like this one are beginning to concern me:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1243328270059405312?s=20[/tweet]

Although this is being freshly reported, I think that story is based off of a study released a few weeks ago. But it raises the same concern - if the immunity is temporary, would that mean we'd need to get re-immunized as often as annually? I'd welcome any input from experts in medicine or immunology on this, because it seems like we've all been operating under the assumption that social distancing and testing, contact tracing, and isolation are stopgaps to getting a "cure" in the form of immunization.

I read an American virologiest (apologies, I can't recall the name) who stated that Chinese reinfection rates were almost assuredly the result of false negatives due to faulty testing.  Separately, I'd read that Chinese testing (both positive and negative) was similarly faulty.